Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Ok no "plausible" way so what other type of way is it?
The implausible?
Well if there was a gene that made people super geniuses with an enormous capacity for compassion and creativity but also made them 100% homosexual (like throwing up imagining the other gender naked)....
... and somehow having homosexual sex just once made you infertile...
... then some homosexual activity would cause the annihilation of these very useful gene.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I am failing to see where the issue is here.That is because you aren't thinking deeply. See OP for hints.They're are no hints in the OP. All you did was post a story of a purported clerical error, and all you've done since it's provide anecdotes of individuals who at worst tried to get away with double voting and were referred for investigation.
Answer the question in (B)
The fact that you are telling me to go search for a more nefarious narrative instead of just explaining it tells me you've got nothing here.
Teach a man to fish
What you're eluding to is the notion that the peoplewho are responsible for following those processes are not following them. Very different things.No I have always been saying that the people who are responsible for running a real election have failed.And yet you are in no position to make that assessment.
Not everyone has their head buried in the sand like you.
The problem is still fraud though, just like the problem that chain of custody solves is planting evidence.Mail in ballots have to be sealed. You can't open them or alter the ballot without destroying them. That's what stops the fraud.
Why would the ballot need to be altered in all cases of fraud?
The results of an election must be thrown out if the fraud could have changed them, regardless of whether any particular person is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.There is no such thing as an election that couldn't have been changed due to fraud.
Then there has never been democracy.
The only question is how high our standards need to be
>= the standard before laws to prevent fraud were illegally nullified and ignored
Your attitude towards that seems to be "well that's what's necessary to ensure integrity"
No, my attitude is that is an idiotic way to remote voting and it constitutes all the sound and fury of a reliable anti-fraud system without actually being secure due to the old "weakest link in the chain" problem.
Measures taken that might have prevented maybe a dozen fraudulent ballots (if any at all)
How did you come up with errors bars that small?
Your entire position is circular. You don't believe elections are valid, therefore they have not been proven to be valid.
They have been executed in such a way that they cannot be proven to be valid, they are a class of high-trust interactions that must be designed and executed in such a way that they can be proven to be valid or else they should be treated as invalid, therefore they (the elections) are invalid de jure.
This is why people like myself remain unconcerned that people like you do not accept the results.
You do not concern yourself with anything that contradicts your presuppositions. You're not even self aware enough to admit that that nonsense about belief and proof applies to everyone including yourself.
Like talking about expertise, bias, or subjectivity it is so much meaningless foam that advances a debate not one micron.
Let us know when you have evidence.
It will be right about the time you open your eyes.
There is no such thing as a system that doesn't ultimately require trust.Bitcoin.And yet no one invests in it.
Shifting goalposts. People trust it because the accuracy of the ledger cannot be faked and is not based on a corruptible central authority.
No one cared about mail in voting until Donald Trump politicized it and told the country it would be used to commit fraud
Actually there are commission reports headed by ex presidents that say mail ballots are susceptible to fraud.
If no one cared before 2020 it's probably because the absolute number of mail-ballots didn't so universally swing outcomes.
And despite massive nationwide conspiracy theory that mail in ballots were used to commit fraud, no one has a problem with it in the states where Trump won.
No one made a fuss in New York either. They focused on swing states for obvious reasons.
There is no one who will admit to not caring if Florida elections are fake.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Too little liberty = 60 million dead of starvation plus tens of millions more dead in a global struggle mostly featuring socialists who advertised their contempt for individual libertyWell that's comparing anarchy on a small scale to socialism on a large scale. And this would be a good reason to not embrace either extreme,
New Hampshire is not anarchy. Confused bears aren't mutually exclusive with civilization.
Liberal civilization (which is true civilization) has better ends and moral means. It's just superior. Confused bears and whatever other detrimental ends might exist in global adoption are insignificant compared to everyone being a much wealthier and having far fewer reasons to fight.
rather than accepting a false dichotomy of socialism and government abolition.
I'm not. I say you can have government without any stealing what so ever. You are the one propagating that dichotomy.
That's an example of the success of market freedoms in regulated capitalist societies
"regulation" is a propaganda term designed to confuse the difference between civilization and socialism (government slavery).
People call punishing fraud regulation, but they also call price-fixing regulation.
Punishing fraud is the maintenance of liberty. Price fixing is the violation of liberty.
There is no reason to expect the violations of liberty which did exist in the 1880s to have been contributors to the increased prosperity much less necessary to it. The only empirical evidence we have is that when more liberty is violated prosperity per capita and prosperity growth is reduced.
You are pointing to a tick on a proud horse and saying "Yea the horse is fast and strong, but he still had this tick so clearly horses can't be fast and strong without ticks"
Now we live in a time where the horse is sickly and covered in ticks and people like you are saying "Ok, things aren't great but if we removed these ticks the horse would die. There has never been a horse without a tick so we know they are necessary and beneficial"
regulated capitalist societies are not the same as government abolition
Moral governments are not the same as immoral governments, but more moral governments are correlated with more successful economies.
Created:
-->
@Savant
The means isn't a violation of rights. Taking a risk or doing something that could accumulate to a violation of rights is not a violation of rights regardless of the scale of that accumulation or risk, that was my point.Let's say your threshold is 1%. If you do something with a 1% chance of killing someone 100 times, how is that morally different than doing something with a 100% chance of killing someone once?
Well it's still possible that you don't kill someone after a 100 1% risks, but is (by definition) probable.
Maybe the punishment should be different, but both are immoral.
For example, starting a car company is statistically certain to lead to some deaths.
and just as certain to save some lives
A suicide that never happened because there was a job at the factory. A person who was saved because your car brought them to the hospital in time. Etc.. etc...
Doing something that will kill an average of 5 people doesn't seem better than doing something that will kill exactly 5 people.
One of the big differences in practice (meaning most of the time as opposed to the purely abstract) is that people consent to risks.
No five people will consent to die (well maybe they would, but then that's not a problem either). 500,000 people may consent to a risk with the general knowledge that five of them won't survive.
This is entirely rational because we are fragile beings and life is full of risks. We balance small risks against our lifetime satisfaction in any case.
If you had never lived, or if you stopped breathing and died the exact same amount of carbon dioxide would be in the atmosphere. Actually there would be more. So you have a 'duty' to keep living and keep all that carbon sequestered in your body tissues (if anything).This is not true. Population correlates with climate change [source].
Carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change. Population may correlate with carbon dioxde release, but not because of breathing but because we dig it up for energy.
Comparing impacts is comparing ends. Not means and ends.This would apply to taxes then too.
You can compare the effects of taxes vs non-taxes, and I do. That is a different thing from looking at the means of taxes vs non-taxes and determining that taxation is immoral.
Wealth redistribution makes people poorer (an end) and some people richer (an end).
Theft is not wrong because someone got poorer. It is wrong because you violated their rights.
If you stole a disgusting statute from someone's front garden, that is still theft even though you could argue that the property value went up by the action. Those who steal very often do justify themselves by appealing to the greater good, governments most often of all.
We're comparing ends in the trolley problem too. Maybe you're referring to the doctrine of double effect, but that gives a lot of leeway to utilitarians.
It is lack of comprehension of the difference between evaluating the morality of means and evaluating the morality of ends that confuses so many people in the trolley problem.
Yes, the trolley problem is about ends. Not means.
Pulling a track lever is not immoral. Pulling a trigger is not immoral. Only the end makes it immoral in some cases. When the immorality comes from the ends, the ends may be compared and you can choose the lesser evil.
The ends and the means are contextual. In the ends in a narrow scope can be the means in the wider scope. It is very relevant who sets up the scenario where evil ends are unavoidable.
For instance if you are the one who tied the people to the track then you're wrong no matter what way you switch the track.
The theft version of the trolley problem would be choosing between stealing a lot and stealing a little. The means cannot be avoided so it is not part of the moral calculation. If however you could choose a path with no theft, that is the path you must take regardless of the ends.
So suppose you tied the people to the track because you've convinced yourself that if either of the parties on the tracks died a hundred other people would live.
That is analogous to taxes, whether you commit one murder or multiple murders you committed murder because you tied people to a track where they would get run-over.
What you describe as "teaching morality" falls under education and could be funded by taxes.
Or we could enslave people to build the school and teach. That would be no less ironic than enslaving people to pay other people to build the school and teach that enslaving people is wrong. Slavery is just continuous institutional theft after all, a compatible definition with taxation.
But in our discussion on taxes, you were arguing that the government violating liberty would lead to anarchy.
Or war, which is anarchy on some scale, and causes anarchy on other scales.
So it sounds like you are arguing that we should accept anarchy to avoid government programs that might lead to anarchy. That comes across as self-defeating.
I at no point said or implied we should accept anarchy. It is your assertion that the lack of taxation is equivalent to anarchy, I have not ceded that point.
No, we just need a solution.If we don't have an immediate solution, we would have a period of anarchy.
Or we could have a transitional plan which is ordered by clear and enforced laws.
You may have noticed tickets to public transportation. This is the solution to the freeloader problem for public transportation.You may have noticed water delivery fees with meters. This is the solution to the freeloader problem for government supplied water.Those do not cover police
No, because as I said the freeloader problem is different for each case. I have at other times described a business model which revolved around insurance and highly localized benefits: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9511-california-proposes-exit-tax-for-fleeing-refugees?page=3&post_number=71
or paving of communal roads.
If a communal road is just a road without a toll, and people find this necessary all they have to do is pay for the road by donation.
And even if upper classes are provided for, some people will still be too poor to access those and will not be able to advance either.
Stealing doesn't increase general prosperity. In fact it makes it much worse.
The public services required for civilization to persist (or non-anarchy) will not be too expensive, even for the poor because the poor in the society will be richer than the middle class of a society which wastes money through theft-enabled corruption.
Or in other words, are there really people so poor they can't afford a toll road? Or a bus pass?
No. Even now, with corrupt and inefficient government poor people rely on public transportation because owning a car is the greater cost.
When people have limited resources (their own production) they are forced to be more efficient, not less. Busses are more efficient. Lots of people being efficient improves production/demand ratios making things cheaper making poor people less poor.
There was a time when a single person could pay for a whole family and pay off a house in ten years. That is what high production/demand ratio looks like. In those societies you're always poorer than someone else but you're not anywhere near being so poor that you can no longer live a life of dignity.
An "everyone out for themself" system is anarchy, regardless of whether you think it is good or not.
Then we redefine anarchy. If rational self-interest is anarchy, then I am an anarchist. However I reject that definition and will not use that label.
Suppose that the answer is that there are no working examples. That does not mean it cannot work. There is always a first time.That does not mean slavery is moral or necessary (for cotton).Studies have shown that slavery decreased overall efficiency.
I would doubt any study that found otherwise; but you won't find such academic work in societies which practice slavery.
If and when a more perfect human civilization comes about, they will write studies showing that government theft (taxation) decreased overall efficiency and marvel at the fact that we who lived in such societies could not see the obvious: https://www.usdebtclock.org/
But policing does reduce crime, so an absence of policing would mean an increase in violence.
Police and laws are implicit requirements for civilization. A population without enforced laws is not in a state of liberty it is simply being oppressed by small scale tyrants. Police need to be paid. They do not need to be paid with stolen wealth.
With slavery, we could see an alternative (factories) in places where slavery was nonexistent.
Factories aren't the alternative to slavery. Freedom is.
You can have an agrarian labor based society without slavery. Factories will beat slave labor and free labor because factories are efficient.
The reason there were factories in places that slavery wasn't is because people could not enslave each other there and thus rational self-interest motivated increasing the efficiency of labor, especially with mechanization.
It was not efficiency made slavery obsolete, it was freedom that created efficiency.
In the exact same way we do not need an alternative to police. We need to fund police morally. Once we do, those improvements to the police which are efficient will be developed and prioritized and we will end up with a more efficient "art of policing".
The same is true for all government funded services. Those who support stealing often like to harp about "no examples of non-theft working" but they are everywhere: In cases where liberty-respecting alternatives are legally allowed the contrast is clear, see charter schools vs public schools. Especially note that difference in spending per student / academic performance.
The charter schools would not fail because the government stopped stealing to run inefficient and corrupt public schools. Hospitals would not fail because the government stopped stealing to run medicare.
There is no cliff to walk off of, only the propaganda of the beneficiaries of the corruption to overcome.
The diversity of civilizations throughout time shows that places without taxes lived in anarchy by today's standards.
The Greek City states under Roman Empire were the farthest thing from anarchy that existed in those times. The best evidence says their public institutions were voluntarily funded.
Some places did have no government services, but that's what anarchy is.
Again, if you're willing to call 1880s UK or US anarchy, then the word ceases to have significance.
When I say anarchy I mean the tyranny of petty thieves and thugs that results when laws against theft and violence do not exist or have no bite.
Anarchy tends to indicate a much lower scale of organization or authority than the conflicts existing today.
Organization relates to scale. "authority" means nothing. Everyone justifies their violence by creating a mythos of authority. See "The godfather" or the origin of local nobility.
People in most first-world countries do not live in fear of being dragged into war.
Thanks to nuclear weapons more than any special capacity for national deep-states to keep their power-lust under control.
Even WW2 had a "home front" in the US that was largely immune from direct war casualties.
and when clans fought each other they left most of their population in castles and forts to stay safe. They weren't always safe, and the British public certainly weren't safe in WW2. If the war had gone poorly the US population base would not be safe either.
This is nothing but the same on a larger scale.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So one must really wonder if God is maybe evil.
Even if a malicious god is a better theory than a benevolent god, it's still worse (at explaining the evidence) than a lack of god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Alan Dershowitz cutting through the bullshit again, specifically by stating the obvious: that high officials of the executive branch have been taking home documents since there were classified documents and if anyone can do it POTUS can. As authorized persons these laws do not apply to them.
The timestamp is for the benefit of people like Double_R who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that claims of obstruction can't propagate backwards through time to make Trump guilty of the so called underlying crime of willfully retaining and sharing classified documents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
A case of homosexual activity that causes genetic annihilation of non defective genes is a reasonable fear.
If you're claiming I said that? No I did not.
Homosexual activity has no plausible way of "causing genetic annihilation" of any kind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Incoherent theories make contradictory predictions. That's a problem with the theory, not the critics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Next you can do "Who cares about the truth more" and explain why you thought a trivial correction to a long standing self-defense law was "sadistic". https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10579-stupid-bill
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The blind partisanship disguised as objectivity that you display here is breathtaking. Let me take the worst of a truly absurd lineup:
8. (At this point in time) Free speech. I see them advocating for stopping the ban of LGBT books in schools, and they have accepted that actual Nazis should get free speech. If only the conservatives thought the same thing about LGBT pride indoctrination books.
If underage homosexual rape depictions in school libraries is free speech, then the mirrored position for "actual nazis" would be to have nazi propaganda cartoons in schools.
I think if you asked "conservatives" you'd find they do think the same thing about nazi cartoons and underage homosexual rape depictions: neither should be shown to prepubescent children and both should be banned from schools meant for minors.
Created:
Posted in:
The provisional ballot count is a proxy for double votes.A provisional ballot is any ballot that requires further review before it can be accepted.
Such as double balloting due to a mail ballot being returned.
One smiled and said "I was testing to see if you'd stop me." He walked out because the ballot he mailed was is true vote.Another said that he changed her mind about voting in person and the had never returned the ballot. The system recorded the ballot as having been received (someone sent it back).So on other words, you're talking about people who tried to do it but the system wouldn't allow it...
Person, singular. 1/8
I told them what I was told, that they would be contacted by investigators to confirm their identity and then the provisional ballot would be counted and the mail ballot would not be. I do not know that is what happened.Right... It was sent back to people to investigate, which makes sense when it comes to whether a ballot is valid.I am failing to see where the issue is here.
That is because you aren't thinking deeply. See OP for hints.
What you're eluding to is the notion that the people who are responsible for following those processes are not following them. Very different things.
No I have always been saying that the people who are responsible for running a real election have failed.
The problem is still fraud though, just like the problem that chain of custody solves is planting evidence. If god existed and prevented people from committing election fraud or planting evidence then we wouldn't need chain of custody for evidence and election procedure failure would not need to be treated the same as a fraudulent outcome.
What do they do with evidence that fails the chain of custody rules? They throw it out. Just as if it had been planted.
The only difference is that when you prove someone planted evidence you can punish that person.
The results of an election must be thrown out if the fraud could have changed them, regardless of whether any particular person is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
If your default is to suspect fraud until proven otherwise then you will never trust election results.You propose it cannot be proven to be accurate?There are still people out there who believe the earth is flat. You cannot prove something to someone who has decided it won’t be proven.
Belief is irrelevant. The earth can be proven to be a sphere. Elections are only elections if they can be proven to a high level of confidence to reflect the will of the majority.
If you don't believe elections can be proven to be accurate then you don't believe in elections as I define them. In that case when you say "democracy" it signifies meaningless ritual to prop up the state and nothing more.
There are laws that can fix it completely and were laws that fixed it most of the way. Which laws? The laws that were ignored and set aside in the 2020 election "cause covid".The fact that states took into account the reality of conducting an election in the middle of a pandemic is not suspicious nor nefarious.
Your spin does not make their actions legal or constitutional, nor does it restore the united states to a state of democracy.
It's not "guilty until proven innocent" it's "unverified until verified".They've been verified over and over and over again.
You have admitted no full canvas has been done.
"trust us bro" is insufficient and always has been.There is no such thing as a system that doesn't ultimately require trust.
Bitcoin.
If you counted and verified every single ballot yourself and concluded Biden won, your personal confirmation would be worthless to the millions upon millions of Trump supporters out there who would just brand you as a part of the deep state.
If ballots could be verified and they were verified then I would have no issue. Your proposal that others would still call it fraudulent is irrelevant.
What matters is that the ballots cannot be verified so those millions are justified.
It doesn't matter what system you come up with, the results will always have to be provided to you in some form. If they're numbers on a spread sheet, someone had to put it together. If you have images of the ballots to sort through, someone had to upload them. There is no such thing as accepting any result without trust, this is the problem I keep pointing out. You are inherently distrustful, so there is no possible way to prove to you what you do not wish to be proven.
You theorize that I would not accept proof if it existed. That is an excuse for having no proof. If you had proof you would not need to theorize.
Biometric blockchain, I've described it before.Yeah, I'm sure the conspiracy theorists won't figure out how to demonize that one...
It doesn't matter if there will always be doubters. There will be less when doubt is unjustified and more importantly there will be an actual democracy.
Curious, do you think there are major ballot counting issues in Florida?I don't know. I haven't heard controversyThat's because Trump won, and unlike the right the left actually believes in democracy.
Yet no one on the right found that suspicious at all. I wonder why.
Did they put up cardboard to block observation of counting? Did a water-main suddenly break? Did a bunch of election workers come forward to blow the whistle?
Sacrificing outcome swinging accuracy for convenience is not reasonable. Both are values, but they do not compete.The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.
There need only be evidence that the process could have allowed it. There is.
Another conspiracy theory that took the facts well out of context. Not wasting my time debunking it.
You can't, it's on video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It could be mixed. A human writing some of the time, using bots other times.Plus, he often makes too good arguments to be a bot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
What does that mean?A homosexual case where the genes are not obvious defects would be a fearful case.
Who gave you two thumbs up for that?
So we're sure this isn't a bot? How?You just stand on the facts and you have a natural instinct on high alert for genetic survival. You hold genetic facts, you stand on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Those were preexisting to this falsely described (by you) amendment.
It (407) would go from:
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.
C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.
TO
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of7 premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in8 threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent9 that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent10 or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass11 by the other person in or ON the premises.12 B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only13 in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-40514 and 13-406.15 C. FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, "premises" means any real16 property OR any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or17 temporary, adapted for EITHER human residence OR lodging whether18 occupied or not.
You can tell what is different because they put it in all caps. I've bolded the original words that were changed.
So somehow your brainwashed media layers managed to take some inconsequential logical union operators changing to "YEeeea ha lets kill us some illegals" and you repeated this lie. That is what a party puppet does.
Here is a summary saying the same thing: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-summary/?billsummary_state=az&billsummary_id=AZB00017885&billsummary_session=56th-2nd-regular
Created:
Posted in:
It is sometimes claimed that election officials are always comprised of mixed group of partisans so there can be no conspiracies afoot. While it is false that every critical decision is made by mixed panels, it's also true that people have been threatened with abduction and theft for not rubber stamping elections before (links can be provided upon request).
Here we see an example of how an election board is tailored to allow pet "republicans" to assure no genuine oversight.
Lam also asked Butler if she thought fraud “is a significant problem in Maryland’s elections,” and she said “no.” Butler also said she did not believe there has been illegal interference in past elections in the state.
Asked for her thoughts about mail-in ballots, Butler said she believed “it can be done extremely well,” and she thought Maryland did “a good job with it under the circumstances we had” during the pandemic.
This (and other similar instances) is why "but a republican said..." is an irrelevant excuse.
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
What is the basis for thinking that love is based on virtue?
Observation. Inference.
Love is based on being attracted to someone physically and then either finding positive personality traits or projecting them because you're so attracted.
What is the difference between a positive personality trait and a virtue?
Also attraction and love are two different things, especially for males.
The generalization is false, there are no or at best very few women who are moneysexual in the same way that very few women are sapiosexual because unlike money, at least your intelligence is actual a trait that you have and not a thing that you merely possess.
I don't think the generalization is false, but there is a difference between being attracted by men with money and being a gold digger.
A gold digger just wants the money, not the genes. They don't care about the person. Money is the end instead of proof of quality.
Imo people are just desperate to say that attraction and romance are based on ANYTHING other than looks which to me seems so obvious at this point.
Suppose attraction and love are both multifaceted and can't be reduced to a single variable even when generalizing?
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
"babe magnet" is a generalization, just because there are women who aren't attracted to money doesn't mean the generalization is false.
Individuals have individual values. Love (not attraction) is ultimately based on perception of virtue, and people (including women) do not agree on virtue.
If left to its own devices the instincts of men and women will associate material wealth with virtue because in our long evolutionary history if a man (or woman) has a bunch of vital stuff in his/her possession it is more likely than not that he/she has useful genes and knowledge.
Those useful genes and knowledge are passed on to kids (most of the time).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No one has argued that merely asserting of evil people in the world is coded language for violence.
You have asserted that claiming the elections have been rigged is coded language for calling for violence.
How many times do I have to explain this to you?
You are not explaining, you are asserting inferentially unrelated statements. No amount of repetition will transform that into an argument just as no amount of repetition of non-defamatory statements will become defamatory.
The argument for incitement is based on the totality of Trump's words and actions from election day through January 6th.
"The totality of trump's words and actions" is not an argument.
yet you keep pretending that's not what I'm saying over and over again. Why?
You keep alluding to a vauge fog by names such as "context" and "totality" and then concluding with "therefore I'm right". I'm not "pretending that's not what you're saying" I'm saying it's not an argument.
e.g. : Taken as a whole Biden's actions from 2020 to 2023 constitute an admission of being a reptilian alien plant. If you don't ignore the full context it's basic communication that Tara Reade told Kylo Ren to stab Han Solo.
That's all I see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
What cases are you fearful of genetic annihilation?
In every case where the genes are not obvious defects (as defined by natural selection) in proportion to the criticality of the gene to the function of the organism and the similarity of the entire genome to my own.
Would it not include a case of homosexuality?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just take issue that there exists a perfect solution where you can have both 100% free and 100% fair elections when that is an impossible outcome.
I'm translating "free" to "without entitlement checks" and "fair" as "accurate".
Yes of course you can't have both and we have no use for "free"/"without entitlement checks" in elections. We ought to have entitlement checks, but they can be very convenient if we actually applied ourselves to the problem.
You have to have a balance between liberty and security, sacrificing neither and prioritizing neither.
I take Benjamin Franklin's view on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm saying there are circumstances where there are significant tradeoffs and situations where there aren't.Lol, it applies to the real world where one knife does not fit all. The idea that there is a magical knife that could solve every problem is the promise of every government seeking a way to control all the knives in the world.
Both scenarios exist, so it's wrong to say there are no easy solutions. There just aren't always easy solutions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Is homophobia akin to so called racism?
Pretending disgrace or lack of dignity for victimless sexual behavior is irrational, like racism.
Can you disagree with a skin color?
No.
Are you fearful of skin color?
No, not even orange.
Are you fearful of genetic annihilation?
In some cases, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As Dr. Sowell says: "There are NO easy solutions in the real world. Only trade-offs"
Bit of a tangent, but I would take issue with that.
There are easy solutions, solutions where the tradeoff is extremely good. We just take them for granted.
For instance making knives out of steel instead of obsidian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's not supposed to resolve anything between us, that's the point.Then it's not a social contract. Which means it's a useless piece of paper.We're talking about laws, not social contracts.
One of the sillier things you've said.
If you were being consistent and were confident that your views ultimately would hold up to rational scrutiny you would be itching to have these deeper conversations
I am not itching to have deeper conversations about the nature of language because you can't find any precedent for your double standards.
I'm asking you for an argument and you're saying "No the preposition goes before the noun", they have nothing to do with each other. You assert a secret meaning and when I deny it you pretend I am denying the existence of coded language as a rule. There is coded language, and coded language for violence, but saying there are evil/improper people and evil/improper acts in the world is not coded language to call for violence. If it was then all critical speech would be incitement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"In Georgia, meanwhile, where Biden leads by about 1,600 votes, officials said they had about 13,000 provisional ballots.""Pennsylvania officials said Friday morning they were just beginning to process provisional ballots and said they had at least 85,000"Not that you care but I personally saw a significant rate of double voting when I was an election judge in 2022. ~6%I have no idea how your quotes feed into your point or how's any of this relates to my point.
The provisional ballot count is a proxy for double votes. If there is a breakdown of the reasons provisional ballots were issued I'd love to see it.
Tell me more about this 6% double voting. How did you identify these instances?
The person stood in front of me, gave me first name, last name, and address, and then I looked up the corresponding voter registry; and then I told them they had already been sent mail ballots (and that someone must have asked for that) "No I didn't".
One smiled and said "I was testing to see if you'd stop me." He walked out because the ballot he mailed was is true vote.
Another said that he changed her mind about voting in person and the had never returned the ballot. The system recorded the ballot as having been received (someone sent it back).
How did you determine that number was 6%?
Tallied the number of people in the category and divided it by the number of people who cast ballots that day.
What did you do about these double votes?
~2/3 went on to fill out a provisional ballot. The rest turned around and left the polling location (one in obvious disgust nearly yelling).
I told them what I was told, that they would be contacted by investigators to confirm their identity and then the provisional ballot would be counted and the mail ballot would not be. I do not know that is what happened.
Not all the mail ballots were recorded as being received back to election officials, so those are just "blank checks" that could have been injected in at some point.
My position is that if you are going to accuse someone of committing fraud you need some kind of evidence.
I agree, but the solution is not to charge fraudsters with fraud it is to make fraud impossible, or to make it detectable and correctable.
When there is a duty to provide high trust lack of reliable strategy to ensure integrity is sufficient to treat the execution fraudulent regardless of whether you can charge or punish anyone.
For instance if someone claims to represent a bank and offer loans, but keeps no ledgers, that person's claims must be treated as fraudulent regardless of whether he or she can be proved to have committed a crime.
A bank with no account sheets is not a real bank regardless of whether you can prove someone is trying to steal money. An election where the totals may or may not reflect the will of the people is not a real election regardless of whether you can prove someone tried to rig it.
Taking the default position that everyone is committing fraud until they prove to you that they are not is not rational
It is perfectly rational in several contexts. Every context where safeguards exist. Chain of custody for police evidence is another one.
If they had no forms or procedures you would never be able to prove they planted evidence. Again lack of evidence is an unacceptable standard by itself. A system had to be designed such that wrongdoing was highly likely to produce evidence. Only then is lack of evidence evidence of lack.
Counting votes will always be done by human beings and will always be verified by human beings.
Systems were designed 2500 years ago that were more foolproof and we have RSA encryption now. There are no excuses.
If your default is to suspect fraud until proven otherwise then you will never trust election results.
You propose it cannot be proven to be accurate? Very Staliny thing to say.
That's a choice you have made, that is not the fault of the democrats, judges, election commissioners, etc. and there is no law that can fix that.
There are laws that can fix it completely and were laws that fixed it most of the way. Which laws? The laws that were ignored and set aside in the 2020 election "cause covid".
The only way to fully audit mail ballots (as practiced) is a total canvas. No total canvas was ever done anywhere.Because that is an incredibly impractical thing to do and the reward is not worth it.
It's impractical, and that's a reason to have secure elections that can be audited without asking every single person if they really voted.
As to whether it is worth it to have real elections, if you're an old man and the USA has balkanized I want you to remember you said that.
Like I just pointed out, if it's guilty until proven innocent then you will just take issue with the total canvas.
I will take issue with anything short of a results that are beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not "guilty until proven innocent" it's "unverified until verified".
"trust us bro" is insufficient and always has been. That is why laws needed to be ignored.
There is nothing that could get you to trust election results
Biometric blockchain, I've described it before.
Curious, do you think there are major ballot counting issues in Florida?
I don't know. I haven't heard controversy, but if the same gaps in integrity exist in Florida and could swing results then the results are fake.
If birds always chirp, no chirping is evidence of no birds.If legitimate elections are auditable then the lack of auditable data is evidence that there was no legitimate election.The absence is evidence can be used as evidence of absence in a situation where a given conclusion would necessitate that evidence.
Yes. Auditable = a situation where inaccuracy would produce evidence of inaccuracy
The problem is that there is no reason for the level of data you think should be available to the public actually be available to the public.
That idea is an attack on democracy. You should be facing the same charges as Trump.
Not how it works.
If you and your tribe were right about "how it works" Jan 6 wouldn't have happened. History tells a different tale about "how it works". You betray trust, your social cohesion crumbles, your civilization weakens and fragments. That's "How it works".
Also, elections is a balancing act and you only seem to be concerned about one side of the scale. Getting the vote count right is imperitive, but so is ensuring that everyone has the right to vote and that voting is made as easy as reasonably possible.
Sacrificing outcome swinging accuracy for convenience is not reasonable. Both are values, but they do not compete. Accuracy is supreme.
It could be both accurate and easy, with biometric blockchains; and those could have been implemented in 2000 if governments weren't filled by people who preferred the system that got them in power regardless of whether it was easy or a few small changes away from being fake.
No one should have to pay for documents they need to exercise a constitutional right
Explain gun permits.
nor should anyone have to wait on line for 12 hours to cast a ballot.
Yet when elections are sabotaged intentionally by officials (see Arizona election 2022) all of those anti-democratic institutions out to "save democracy" didn't care that election officials lied on the stand to cover up their actions (which made people wait in long lines).
The fact that people are concerned about the other side of the scale which you seem to care nothing about is not evidence of mal intent.
When combined with the above two counter examples it is. If they cared about constitutional rights having delays and fees they would not support gun permits. If they cared about voting being an undue burden they would have been very concerned over election officials lying about misprinting delay-causing ballots on the stand.
Created:
-->
@Savant
This would require quantifying what the threshold is for a "significant chance".
Yes
We could say something similar about driving cars despite the minor risk of hitting a pedestrian.
The means isn't a violation of rights. Taking a risk or doing something that could accumulate to a violation of rights is not a violation of rights regardless of the scale of that accumulation or risk, that was my point.
There is a huge moral difference between saying "some people just gota get run over so I can get to work, my job is more important than their life" and saying "The risk of me hitting anyone is acceptable in our society"
The carbon dioxide an animal breathes out is part of a closed carbon cycle. You don't breathe out any carbon that wasn't captured from the atmosphere or biosphere first.Sure, that's true. But it does not negate the fact that you are breathing out carbon, which does have negative effects on the environment.
Of course it does. If you had never lived, or if you stopped breathing and died the exact same amount of carbon dioxide would be in the atmosphere. Actually there would be more. So you have a 'duty' to keep living and keep all that carbon sequestered in your body tissues (if anything).
Carbon dioxide is cooling the planet, it does not contribute to global warmingIt cools some parts of the planet,
It blocks IR radiation from the sun higher in the atmosphere while doing nothing to impede convection currents which dominate energy flow. The asymmetric effect is always to cool the surface, even though the effect is probably immeasurably small and even more so when the carbon dioxide settles near the surface in stagnant conditions.
but it correlates positively with global warming overall [source].
It correlates because warmer temperatures outgas carbon dioxide from the oceans.
And measuring net impacts instead of focusing on just negative impacts seems a lot like saying the ends can justify the means in certain circumstances.
Impacts = ends.
Comparing impacts is comparing ends. Not means and ends.
There is nothing intrinsically immoral about breathing or burning a billion tons of coal per second. The only proposed immorality is the impact/ends/outcome.
If the outcome is a violation of rights, that can make the means immoral for that reason. Ends cannot justify means, but they can condemn them.
Only teaching a man morals will keep him from attacking anyone except in the defense of liberty.A lot of schools do teach morals. Many of them have units on genocide.
Pointing to something and saying "that's bad" isn't teaching morality. Teaching morality requires teaching philosophy, specifically ethics. Anyone can point at concentration camps and say "not again", what the world is missing are people who understand why people thought it was justified to build a concentration camp in the first place and why they thought the government that did it deserved their trust and loyalty.
The only answer that has the slightest validity to that question has been the freeloader problem. Solve the freeloader problem in other waysIf we slashed all taxes tomorrow, how would anarchy be avoided?
Suppose the answer is: It could not be.
That proves nothing. If you free fifty million slaves overnight with no provision for how they would be taken care of / make a living you would get anarchy too. That does not mean slavery is necessary for civilization or that it is morally sound.
Societies can and do get themselves into situations where they are committing mass immorality on false claims of necessity and there is no simple and instant fix.
We'd need an immediate solution.
No, we just need a solution.
Has the freeloader problem been solved on a large enough scale in some country that we would not consider that place to be living in anarchy?
There is no general solution to the problem. It depends on the government service. Examples of solutions are easily found. If you live in the USA you may have an EZ pass. This is a solution to the free loader problem in regards to roads.
You may have noticed tickets to public transportation. This is the solution to the freeloader problem for public transportation.
You may have noticed water delivery fees with meters. This is the solution to the freeloader problem for government supplied water.
Suppose that the answer is that there are no working examples. That does not mean it cannot work. There is always a first time.
Imagine someone complaining that the government can't prevent him from killing other human beings because then he would have no recourse when they raped his wife.
Just because there are not an infinite number of pathways consisting of small beneficial steps does not mean there is not a superior stable point somewhere else. In evolutionary theory they call it scaffolding when there is no directly path with continuous positive feedback.
The system of "you don't kill people in revenge" requires "we'll defend all your rights".
The diversity of civilizations throughout time and space give ample evidence of the fact that many of the things we call necessary public services are not necessary to have those services and that voluntary funding can be sufficient to maintain public order. Theory and empirical evidence agree. If there is a lack of a tax-free government it is for the same reason that there were once no nations without slavery. When a universally tempting corruption is legal and normalized it will be universal.
Even then, my issue isn't lack of alternatives as much as it is that taxes have funded things that have been shown to reduce disorder
Cotton has been shown to be an excellent fiber for fabric. That does not mean slavery is moral or necessary (for cotton).
If your threshold for anarchy is such that you don't consider a bunch of independent warring clans to be anarchy, then maybe that's an alternative.
Push it to the extreme in the other direction:
If warring clans are anarchy, then why not warring nations? "Special military actions" "Police actions", or whatever other nonsense they call all this constant killing.
If the justification of taxes is to assure peace and prosperity then isn't the constant war proof that even if the price is paid the goods are not delivered? Indeed one might remark upon the fact that where ever there is large scale war there were taxes to build the weapons and pay the soldiers.
There's one example where slashing all government functions has been tried and failed [source]
I find the notion that this was an example of failure hilarious.
Too much liberty = confused bears
Too little liberty = 60 million dead of starvation plus tens of millions more dead in a global struggle mostly featuring socialists who advertised their contempt for individual liberty
and no large-scale success stories that come to mind. This will of course depend on what you consider success. A society with loose authority and 1800s living standards would probably be considered anarchy by most people today.
I do consider the industrial and technological revolutions of 1880 -> 1910 to be an example of positive correlation of economic liberty and prosperity
If that is what someone wants to call anarchy, then by their standards I am an anarchist
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
Myth, very convenient conceptual trap for socialists to manipulate you though.i.e the direct opposite of fascism.
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
Communist countries are usually Fascism pretending to be Socialism.
The fascists and the nazis said they were socialists too.
They all agree they're socialists. It's people like you who won't let them have the label.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I don't give him any money. They'll just steal it (and he'll let them).
I do volunteer time and money for actions that might actually make a difference locally.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Good can outweigh evil for the same choice, but when the evil is the violation of other's rights the cost is social morality itself.Contributing to global warming violates everyone's rights (by a tiny amount).
I'm normally not one to dismiss an example when there is a thought experiment to be had, but I can't stand the scientific falsehoods in this case.
Let's imagine a class of actions which in some small way contribute to an event which constitutes an attack on the liberty of others. The normal rules of causality and reasonableness would apply here. If the contribution to the damage can be quantified then only those furtherances which constitute a significant chance of being "the final straw" could be considered intentional attacks.
For instances there are many substances that are completely non-toxic below certain concentrations. If everyone shared a lake, it isn't an attack on others to allow microscopic amounts of arsenic or cyanide to leak into the lake from your actions. Only once it's within an order of magnitude of the concentration required to produce measurable/confirmed theoretical effects would it be "poisoning your neighbors".
An act which does not constitute an attack is having a baby. Even though it is an absolute fact that beyond a certain point quality of life must decrease with overcrowding, people do not have a right to quality of life. They have a right to not be attacked (or threatened with attack, or stolen from, or deceived in a trade)
----
Ok, now for this particular example here are all the independently sufficient reasons it is wrong:
Carbon dioxide is cooling the planet, it does not contribute to global warming
A (slightly) warmer planet is not a planet with less quality of life, a warmer more carboniferous planet has more food, more animals, and more temperate climates. It has more severe storms and winds but those can be completely mitigated by good engineering and the winds provide more energy for windmills.
The carbon dioxide an animal breathes out is part of a closed carbon cycle. You don't breathe out any carbon that wasn't captured from the atmosphere or biosphere first.
The carbon expelled by breathing is insignificant compared to that which is emitted by using the vast amounts of hydrocarbon fuels that almost all of us do in some way or another.
Increased education generally reduces the chances of terrorism and gang violence, for example.
Well educated geniuses worked for the nazis. Giving a man a fish may keep him from attacking you for a day. Teaching a man to fish may keep him from attacking you over food. Only teaching a man morals will keep him from attacking anyone except in the defense of liberty.
And if taxes didn't exist, you would just have anarchy anyway.That is false.Anarchy generally means "no government."
I accept that definition, and the conjugate definition of government as any entity that controls territory and enforces a code of behavior (laws) in that territory.
That's what anarchists advocate for, anyway.
All anarchists may be against taxes, but not everyone who is against taxes is an anarchist.
You may assert that lack of taxes implies anarchy, but I deny that and my denial does not make me an anarchist anymore than a pro-choice person admits to supporting murder by denying the personhood of a fetus.
I don't think we could have a government (or something recognizable as a government) without taxes.
I believe if you tried to justify your opinion I cold debunk those arguments.
The question that arises from first principles is not "how would you do it without stealing" it is "why do you need to steal?"
The only answer that has the slightest validity to that question has been the freeloader problem. Solve the freeloader problem in other ways and the how and the why of a government that doesn't steals becomes apparent (often comically obvious).
Created:
-->
@Savant
because breathing is bad?Because breathing isn't bad, despite technically having a bad effect. Breathing releases CO2, but sometimes you take the bad with the good.
Good can outweigh evil for the same choice, but when the evil is the violation of other's rights the cost is social morality itself. That is why the ends do not justify the means. The correct context of "means" is not grilling a burger, it refers to violating the rights of others. The means can never be justified so the ends do not matter.
The effect of violating rights is war and anarchy.Sometimes. Probably not always. I don't know that tickling someone without their consent would lead to war and anarchy.
Do not confuse scale with nature.
There is war between two families and war between two nations and the causes are of the same nature and the suffering per capita can easily be similar.
The possibility of domination and forgiveness are temporal offsets that do not change the grand causality.
And if taxes didn't exist, you would just have anarchy anyway.
That is false.
Created:
-->
@Savant
because breathing is bad?If your argument is that good+bad=bad necessarily, then breathing is a counterexample.
I would say that things with good and bad effects can sometimes be bad
The effect of violating rights is war and anarchy. War and anarchy will never be beat as sources of human suffering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.No review you are capable of. That is an implausible excuse.Nonsense. What would be implausible in a country of over 300 million people is that no such errors occurred. Human beings make mistakes from time to time. That's not news.
"In Georgia, meanwhile, where Biden leads by about 1,600 votes, officials said they had about 13,000 provisional ballots."
"Pennsylvania officials said Friday morning they were just beginning to process provisional ballots and said they had at least 85,000"
Not that you care but I personally saw a significant rate of double voting when I was an election judge in 2022. ~6%
This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.Statistics don't exist without data sets. Data sets don't exist when data is hidden.There is plenty of information publicly available on voter fraud statistics
No there isn't. Assertions about percentages are not data. For example I said I observed a 6% rate of double balloting. That's an assertion. Not data. You can't verify it, but you're claim I should trust people who were put in positions of authority so trust me I guess (lol).
there are institutions run by both democrats and republicans that have for decades audited votes and found nothing
The only way to fully audit mail ballots (as practiced) is a total canvas. No total canvas was ever done anywhere.
The fact that you do not have evidence for something is not evidence of that something.
Yes it is. If birds always chirp, no chirping is evidence of no birds.
If legitimate elections are auditable then the lack of auditable data is evidence that there was no legitimate election.
It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotesWhen there are piles, it no longer becomes anecdotal.When your pile is 30 examples long in a state where millions of ballots were cast... They're still anecdotes.
No they are not. The inverse filters must be applied.
If a certain species of fish is only spotted surfacing at a rate of 0.1% and you know there are millions of fish passing through a river, 30 fish of a certain color are seen above the water indicates 30/0.01% = 300,000 fish of that color are among the millions.
The sample filtering cannot be determined accurately without knowing about almost every fraudulent ballot mailer. That is impossible without a full canvas, in fact even a full canvas would be unable to catch people who sold their vote.
Significance of the evidence cannot proven, but reasonable estimates show outcome changing swings.
you're just trying to deligitimize the process altogether.
Your perception of intent is irrelevant. The process is not legitimate because reasonable doubt as to accuracy exists.
To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.An election whose integrity is in reasonable doubt has disenfranchised the entire body politic.The doubts are not reasonable
You have proven you are not a reliable judge of reasonableness.
not a single thing you point to wouldn't be expected in a country with over 300 million people and 50 different states all conducting their own elections.
Nor is a person dying an unexpected event, but yet people seem so sure Navalny was murdered. It's not the errors and oversights. It's how people in power engineered and reacted to them.
Honest fellow citizens would have worked together to secure the elections, then there would be no reasonable doubt. Instead a third was brainwashed and tried to gaslight the other 2/3.
If there is no fraud there would be nothing to lose by having real elections. Those who oppose real elections are all but confessing.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Harassment is what is happening to Trump,He's running for the oval office, people talking about him is not harassment, it's literally what he signed up for.
When you accuse someone of a crime, you're signing up for someone to call you a liar; most likely but not limited to the accused.
If by harassment you're talking about the lawsuits, they were filed in response to Trump's decision to attack EJC publicly.
As is his right. When frivolous lawsuits are filed against people for exercising their rights that is harassment (in colloquial not legal terms).
There is no overlap between the concepts of harassment and defamation.WTF? Defamation is a literal form of harassment.
Cite the law.
Here is an example: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/240.30
Notice section 5, there is your cumulative effect written in law as opposed to magically transforming non-criminal non-defamatory 1st amendment protected speech into defamation and/or harassment and/or incitement.
This is why the first time you get a speeding ticket you might pay $60, the second you might pay $120, the third you might get you're license revoked.
You'll find that escalation in law. You won't find a law that says you're speeding at time T+X because at time T a pseudo-jury found you guilty of speeding.
You should really think about which one of us actually loses their mind and suddenly can't figure out how to apply the same standards we apply to everything else as soon as Trump is involved.
I have, it's you. Proof: You can't find precedent, you can't apply your standards in a way that is consistent with everyone else but Trump being innocent or guilty in contradiction to actual legal and popular opinions over the past 200 years.
Now go back to all of your other false examples and notice the absence of those elements.
Those are absent in Trump's case so there is no need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then it's not a social contract. Which means it's a useless piece of paper.It's not supposed to resolve anything between us, that's the point.
What has to be determined is whether he did in fact engage in the conduct the 14th describes, that's a question of fact and law which takes individuals who have the qualifications in both the facts and the law to determine.
and a law
yet everytime I try you avoid that conversation
If you're talking about your recitation of basic english intermixed by (and unrelated to) raw arbitrary assertions which would lead to absurdities if equally applied there is nothing to respond to. It's either obvious or mere assertion.
Context matters, but you uttering the phrase "context" as magic pass phrase that allows you to makeup whatever convoluted standard you want and to apply it only to one man and those who support him does not matter.
Created:
-->
@Mall
No.Is it good that people be free to murder or steal?
Created:
-->
@Savant
not dying of suffocation = goodbreathing = bad
A poor analogy.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Why doesn't the military and government know this thing about truth?Otherwise they wouldn't use ammunition and gunpowder right.
Stating the conditions for an outcome does not guarantee that one party can unilaterally create those conditions by whim.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Looking at someone with an evil eye is not murder because you were convicted of murder (for looking at someone mean) before.This is not analogous to anything we're talking about.
Yes it is. One fake crime followed by another fake crime except you're saying because lunatics declared the first fake crime a real crime then the second fake crime must also be a real crime even if it would not have been in isolation.
An example that would be analogous is harassment.
Harassment is what is happening to Trump, if it was confined to protected speech as opposed to the illegal betrayal of law and order it would be a 'necessary evil' for a public figure. There is no overlap between the concepts of harassment and defamation. You're simply acting out the Karen delusion that anything that bothers you must be illegal. Your skewed perception of common sense fairness has no basis in real law.
All legal proceedings are matters of public interest. Trump cannot defame anyone ever by speaking on matters of public interest. There has been a long standing tactic to have one party file a civil suit (where you can allege anything you want) and then a "journalists" reports the accusation.
For instance you can claim that someone went Epstein's island and raped 50 kids in a lawsuit, and then 50 parrot "news sources" can say "X is accused of raping 50 kids". Then Trump could say "X did rape 50 kids, you saw it in the lawsuit" because it's a matter of public interest.
If that is defamation, there are a lot of people who need to pay up. Many of them to Trump.
Now if Trump can agree with a party in a random lawsuit unconnected to him, why can't he agree with his own lawyers in a suit brought against him?
Use basic reasoning Double_R.
I have a really serious question for you... What exactly do you think was the take away from Trump's remarks there about EJC?
Trump's message was clear and had no deeper meaning.
If he was a more philosophical man he might have made a point that there are rights which must never be surrendered regardless of the costs, and the right to assert one's innocence is definitely one of them.
As you ponder this question, let's not forget that he's making them at a political rally in front of supporters which he's been telling for years that he's under attack from evil people who hate our country and are just trying to take him down because they want to stop him from "fighting for you".
Oh now it's incitement as well as defamation? Don't forget your hilarious list of tailored conditions. He has to name a place and a time (you said).
Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.No it is not. One of the elements is damages...which follows from people caring what you say.
Not just any people, not just any caring. People who believe it and deny opportunities of objective value based on that belief.
So back to your question... What you said about EJC is not defamation in part because you do not have the power to cause her reputational harm... since no one cares what you have to say about her.
You don't know that. You don't need to run a newspaper or run for president to defame someone. Private conversations can be defamatory.
but we can sidestep this clown excuse. People do care what Biden says:
Why didn't Biden defame Tara Reade here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seu_C08yAAM
"$91 million, based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of, I knew nothing about her." - Trump
"It is not true. I'm saying unequivocally: It never never happened. and it didn't, it never happened." - Biden
Created:
-->
@Mall
It is objectively good for all minds with self-chosen values, which is likely by definition all minds with significant capacity for abstraction.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
You're obsessed with Trump's wife, you say Trump wants to be king, but you also want to be king.
This is quite the psychosis you've got. Hate-envy complex?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Do you want welfare or not?
avoiding suffering = good
stealing = bad
stealing to avoid suffering = bad
Do you want debt or not?
Debt to solve cash-flow = good
Debt for immediate satisfaction where the interest is a significant portion of the final cost = bad
Debt as part of an inflation scheme = theft
Created:
It is objectively wrong because it contradicts the principle of liberty which is the necessary basis of all possible uniform social moral theories.
Created:
Wars arise from moral disagreements.
Disagreements are contradictions, contradictions mean one or both assertions are false
The solution to disagreements is true assertions (the truth).
The truth is found through reason.
The end of war begins when these statements becomes repugnant to the super-majority:
morality is subjective
morality comes from a source that need not explain itself, e.g. god
Created:
-->
@Double_R
How telling.
It is telling. When you see people with the same agenda hiding evidence and making up crimes you no longer care much about their secret evidence that they can only tell to sequestered pseudo-juries with TDS.
The deep state who cried wolf.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Well now comes MSNBC and their "legal experts" to make it very clear, that denying wrongdoing is in fact defamation (so long as you're orange).It's defamation when it's a continuation of the same behavior from the previous two lawsuits
This is not the definition of defamation. There is no reliance on previous lawsuits of any kind.
Looking at someone with an evil eye is not murder because you were convicted of murder (for looking at someone mean) before.
"$91 million, based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of, I knew nothing about her." is either a defamatory statement or it is not. MSNBC 'experts' claim it was, just as they and the pseudo judge and the psuedo juries claimed that Trump's previous denials of wrongdoing were defamatory.
EJC lied. She was not raped.Why have I not just defamed her?Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.
No it is not. One of the elements is damages, unless it is defamation per se in which case there is no requirement to prove damages and no requirement that people care what you say.
One of the classic examples of defamation per se is the accusation of sexual misconduct (What EJC said about DJT, not the other way around).
I'm not talking about the real legal concept of defamation. I am talking about the concept implied by the EJC civil trial and the statements of these so called legal experts on MSNBC.
In that fascist fantasy made real, damages are not a requirement. If they were somebody would have had to prove damages to EJC and that did not happen because no one who has the slightest inclination to believe DJT would have believed EJC after she accused him of rape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.
No review you are capable of. That is an implausible excuse.
This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.
Statistics don't exist without data sets. Data sets don't exist when data is hidden.
It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotes
When there are piles, it no longer becomes anecdotal.
again, out of over 300 million people
Anecdotes: https://sayevery.name/
The difference is there are comprehensive datasets about deaths resulting from police action. At some point it became 'undemocratic' to publish such lists for election integrity.
To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.
An election whose integrity is in reasonable doubt has disenfranchised the entire body politic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.Review the context.Just did, same result.
Unfortunate, this is basic English after all.
Not voting for someone is an individual choice. Preventing others from voting for him because you've decided he's an insurrectionist is not.The people who decided no one should be able to vote for him are the framers of the 14th amendment
They died a long time ago. If they left it up for you to decide who is disqualified, then they left it up to me as well; and that means the document resolves nothing between us.
Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.8 words are better than the zero words used to justify abortion being a right or the privacy of one's bedroom being a justification for anything that may happen there.And it's still 8 words.
That you can't erase.
Created:
Posted in:
Just a thread where I can dump all the little puzzle pieces that each individually fail to impress certain brainwashed segments of the population. It's about the big picture and the 'context' of how everything together just kinda means something more you know?
To start us off is this (democrat politician was told someone voted in her name):
Now I encourage inquiring minds to think a little bit ahead here. Which is the more insightful:
A) Well ok everything is fine, they caught the double ballot and she voted with a provisional. When they confirm it's her that's the ballot they'll use. No harm no foul. This does not evidence any problem what so ever.
B) If she had not tried to vote, would the fraudulent ballot have counted?
No time limits, but there is a wrong answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
No, the problem is 20% of "his voters" just turned into Trump voters because for some bizarre reason they (you know who I mean) decided to treat illegal migrants to the spoils of government theft right in front of urban poor.
So he's hoping he will win them back by out-Trumping Trump on this one issue. It might work, many Americans have goldfish memory.
Created: